Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

In a pilot study, two-dimensional (2-D) CT assessment of posterior wall fracture fragments predicted hip stability with small fracture fragments and instability for large fracture fragments. To confirm the previous findings, we determined whether there is sufficient observer consistency and accuracy to predict hip stability in posterior wall acetabular fractures for this CT assessment method and assessed its ease of clinical use. We selected 10 fractures having variable characteristics with known clinical outcome and created three study participant groups, based on level of training, for evaluation. Each observer reviewed the CT scans from the 10 fractures and applied the method in two separate sessions, the second after at least a 1-month washout period. Participants reported subjective ease in using the method, averaging 5 minutes (range, 3–11 minutes) for each assessment. Intraobserver and interobserver reliability were both greater than 0.80 regardless of the level of experience. Although sensitivity was 90%, specificity was only 61% after comparison with examination under anesthesia (EUA). Inappropriate nonoperative treatment would have occurred in 6% of cases and inappropriate operative treatment in 16%. This method for assessing hip instability is reliable, reproducible, and easy to learn and use. However, as a diagnostic tool in the clinical setting, it is useful only for fractures involving greater than 50% of the posterior wall owing to limited accuracy. For fractures less than 50%, EUA should be performed to determine hip stability.

The “terrible triad” of the elbow is a complex injury that can lead to pain, stiffness, and posttraumatic arthritis if not appropriately treated. The primary goal of surgery for these injuries is to restore stability of the joint sufficient to permit early motion. Although most reports recommend repair and/or replacement of all coronoid and radial head fractures when possible, a recent cadaveric study demonstrated that type II coronoid fractures are stable unless the radial head is removed and not replaced. The purposes of this study were to determine the (1) range of motion; (2) clinical scores using the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) and the Broberg-Morrey questionnaires; and (3) rate of arthritic changes, heterotopic ossification (HO), or elbow instability postoperatively in patients whose terrible triad injuries of the elbow included Reagan-Morrey type I or II coronoid fractures that were treated without fixation. Between April 2008 and December 2010, 14 consecutive patients were treated for acute terrible triad injuries that included two Regan-Morrey type I and 12 Regan-Morrey type II coronoid fractures. Based on the senior author’s (DGS) clinical experience that coronoid fractures classified as such do not require fixation to restore intraoperative stability to the posterolaterally dislocated elbow, all injuries were treated by the senior author with a surgical protocol that included radial head repair or prosthetic replacement and repair of the lateral ulnar collateral ligament (LUCL) followed by intraoperative fluoroscopic examination through a range of 20° to 130° of elbow flexion to confirm concentric reduction of the ulnohumeral joint. Using this protocol, intraoperative stability was confirmed in all cases without any attempt at coronoid or anterior capsular repair. Repair of the medial collateral ligament or application of external fixation was not performed in any case. All patients were available for followup at a minimum of 24 months (mean, 41 months; range, 24–56 months). The mean patient age was 52 years (range, 32–58 years). At the followup all patients were evaluated clinically and radiographically by the senior author. Outcome measures included elbow range of motion, forearm rotation, elbow stability, and radiographic evidence of HO or arthritic changes using the Broberg and Morrey scale. Elbow instability was defined as clinical or radiographic evidence of recurrent ulnohumeral dislocation or subluxation at final followup. Clinical outcomes were assessed with the patient-reported DASH questionnaire and the physician-administered Broberg-Morrey elbow rating system. The mean arc of ulnohumeral motion at final followup was 123° (range, 75°–140°) and mean forearm rotation was 145° (range, 70°–170°). The mean Broberg and Morrey score was 90 of 100 (range, 70–100, higher scores reflecting better results) and the average DASH score was 14 of 100 (range, 0–38, higher scores reflecting poorer results). Radiographs revealed mild arthritic changes in one patient. One patient developed radiographically apparent but asymptomatic HO. None of the patients demonstrated instability postoperatively. These findings demonstrate that terrible triad injuries with type I and II coronoid process fractures can be effectively treated without fixation of coronoid fractures when repair or replacement of the radial head fracture and reconstruction of the LUCL complex sufficiently restores intraoperative stability of the elbow through a functional range of motion. Level IV, therapeutic study. See Guidelines to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Previous approaches for medial collateral ligament (MCL) reconstruction have been associated with extensive exposure, risk of donor site morbidity with autografts, loss of motion, nonanatomic graft placement, and technical complexity with double-bundle constructs. Therefore, we implemented a technique that uses Achilles allograft, small incisions, and anatomic insertions to reconstruct the MCL. The MCL femoral insertion was identified, and a socket reamed over a guide pin. The Achilles bone plug was fixed in the socket and the tendon passed distally under the skin and fixed on the tibia, creating isometric reconstruction. We evaluated 14 patients who had this MCL reconstruction. We determined range of knee motion, knee ligament laxity, functional outcome scores (International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC]-subjective, Lysholm, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS]), and activity level scores (Tegner, Marx). Followup range was 24 to 61 months. Knee motion was maintained in 12 cases. Grade 0-1 + valgus stability was obtained in all 14 cases. In cases of MCL with primary ACL reconstruction, IKDC-subjective, Lysholm, and KOOS-sports scores were 91 ± 6, 92 ± 6, and 93 ± 12, respectively, and return to preinjury activity levels was achieved. In cases of MCL with revision ACL reconstruction, function was inferior, and patients did not return to their preinjury activity levels. This technique uses allograft that provides bone-to-bone healing on the femur, requires small incisions, and creates isometric reconstruction. When performed with a cruciate reconstruction, knee stability can be restored at 2 to 5 years followup. In patients with MCL with primary ACL reconstruction, return to preinjury activity level in recreational athletes can be achieved.

Mechanical factors related to patellofemoral pain syndrome and maltracking are poorly understood. Clinically, the Q-angle, J-sign, and lateral hypermobility commonly are used to evaluate patellar maltracking. However, these measures have yet to be correlated to specific three-dimensional patellofemoral displacements and rotations. Thus, we tested the hypotheses that increased Q-angle, lateral hypermobility, and J-sign correlate with three-dimensional patellofemoral displacements and rotations. We also determined whether multiple maltracking patterns can be discriminated, based on patellofemoral displacements and rotations. Three-dimensional patellofemoral motion data were acquired during active extension-flexion using dynamic MRI in 30 knees diagnosed with patellofemoral pain and at least one clinical sign of patellar maltracking (Q-angle, lateral hypermobility, or J-sign) and in 37 asymptomatic knees. Although the Q-angle is assumed to indicate lateral patellar subluxation, our data supported a correlation between the Q-angle and medial, not lateral, patellar displacement. We identified two distinct maltracking groups based on patellofemoral lateral-medial displacement, but the same groups could not be discriminated based on standard clinical measures (eg, Q-angle, lateral hypermobility, and J-sign). A more precise definition of abnormal three-dimensional patellofemoral motion, including identifying subgroups in the patellofemoral pain population, may allow more targeted and effective treatments.

Orthopaedic oncologists often must address leg-length discrepancy after resection of tumors in growing patients with osteosarcoma. There are various alternatives to address this problem. We describe a three-stage procedure: (1) temporary arthrodesis, (2) lengthening by Ilizarov apparatus, and (3) tumor prosthesis. We asked (1) to what extent are affected limbs actually lengthened; (2) how many of the patients who undergo a lengthening procedure eventually achieve joint arthroplasty; and (3) can the three-stage procedure give patients a functioning joint with equalization of limb length? We reviewed 56 patients (younger than 14 years) with osteosarcoma who had staged lengthening arthroplasty between 1991 and 2004. Thirty-five of the 56 patients (63%) underwent soft tissue lengthening, and of these 35, 28 (50% of the original group of 56) had implantation of a mobile joint. Three of the 28 prostheses were later removed owing to infection after arthroplasty. The overall average length gained was 7.8 cm (range, 4–14 cm), and 25 (71%) of the 35 patients had a mobile joint at final followup. The average Musculoskeletal Tumor Society functional score was 23.2 (range, 15–28) and limb-length discrepancy at final followup was 2.6 cm (range, 0–6.5 cm). Although most mobile joints had an acceptable ROM (average, 74.2°; range, 35°–110°), extension lag was frequent. Our approach is one option for skeletally immature patients, especially in situations where an expandable prosthesis is not available. However, this technique requires multiple stages and would be inappropriate for patients who cannot accept prolonged functional deficit owing to a limited lifespan or other reasons. Level IV, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.